A food entertainer’s campaign of “extreme fury and abuse” against a rival Instagram character has cost him over $300,000.
In the first case to continue under the new defamation law, the NSW District Court determined that Fouad Najem caused severe harm to a man he had never met by wrongly labeling him a pedophile and a racist.
Issac Martin, a 31-year-old known to his 300,000 Instagram followers as Sir Eats-A-Lot, stated that the pictures caused him to turn down employment and avoid specific parts of Sydney for fear of being harmed.
Isaac Martin (left) was granted $300,000 in damages after his food blogger rival Fouad Najem falsely accused him of being a pedophile and rapist.
Monday, Judge Judith Gibson stated, “The extraordinary nature of the charges is a crucial issue.”
Paedophiles are the most despised criminals in Australia.
They are not even protected in prison. A paedophile accusation ranks at or near the top of the list of serious accusations. Racism allegations are objectionable, but not on the same level.
Mr. Najem denied that his four April films conveyed the asserted meanings or caused substantial harm, but he did not present any substantive defenses, the court ruled.
While he was represented in pre-trial procedures, he never provided evidence nor attended the trial to defend himself against the charges.
The court was informed that in a film incorporating photos of Mr. Martin’s promotional work for the NRL Indigenous All Stars match, the plaintiff was referred to as a ‘pedo dog,’ a ‘racist dog,’ and one who ‘hates multiculturalism’
Judge Gibson stated that the’most distressing component’ of the ‘campaign of enormous intensity and abuse’ was Mr. Najem’s call to arms to followers, which dehumanized Mr. Martin and his wife.
Issac Martin, a 31-year-old known online as Sir Eats-A-Lot, said the posters caused him to turn down jobs and avoid specific parts of Sydney for fear of being attacked.
Mr. Najem called Mr. Martin directly to inform him that he was “going to end (him)” before telling his followers, “I WANT EVERYONE TROLLING THIS C***.”
The judge stated, “This is a pedagogy of hatred.”
Judge Gibson found that Mr. Najem’s objective was to denigrate a competitor and that there was significant evidence of a widespread grapevine impact. He stated that Mr. Najem’s repetition of the assertions as recently as October 9 could constitute substantial injury.
In April, Mr. Martin filed complaints with police and the Australian Cyber Security Centre before choosing to file a defamation lawsuit over the most severe claims.
Mr. Martin told AAP, “When the police system failed us, I felt civil litigation was my last recourse to repair my name and defend my family from such needless online attacks.”
“To this day, neither I nor my wife have received an apology for the nasty abuse and harassment he proceeded to deliver.
Mr. Martin (shown with his wife Sammi) reported to police and the Australian Cyber Security Centre in April before choosing to file a defamation lawsuit against his competitor.
I am uncertain if he recognizes that what he has done is bad.
Mr. Martin stated that he struggled to deal with it as an adult and he was concerned that youngsters had to deal with it daily.
He said, “The argument that it “wasn’t that horrible” is insufficient, because it wasn’t that bad until it was.”
The court did not identify Mr. Najem’s reports in order to avoid drawing additional attention to statements that are “so sensational, rude, and vulgar that they should not be reproduced except for the most compelling reasons.”
Damages of $306,656 were granted to Mr. Martin, including punitive damages and interest. In addition, Mr. Najem was permanently prohibited from repeating the allegations.
The case is the first to go to trial since Australian defamation laws were amended to eliminate circumstances in which legal fees trumped damages. Plaintiffs must now demonstrate that their reputation has been severely damaged.